[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by stormylin

Definitely off the beaten path of Prolix being a good choice to run for office or become a judge. I agree with your opinion. Though, I can't get past the fact that attorneys should never be legislatures. And still I believe it is in our best interest to understand that it is plausible this system that in place is not legitimate and completely unconstitutional.

Education7
As has been true in previous Congresses, the Members of the 108th Congress are well educated. At least 399 Members of the House and 97 Senators hold bachelor’s degrees;124 Members of the House and 19 Senators have master’s degrees; 175 Members of the House and 59 Senators hold law degrees; 18 Members of the House have doctoral degrees; and 11 Members of the House and three Senators hold medical degrees.8 In addition, there are two graduates of the U. S. Military Academy, one in the House
and one in the Senate; one Senator is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy; one Representative (a woman) is a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy; five Representatives and three Senators were Rhodes Scholars; one Representative was a Fulbright Scholar, and one was a Marshall Scholar.
Congressional Service9 At the beginning of the 108th Congress, the average length of service of Members of the House was about 9 years or 4.6 terms, the highest it has been since the 102nd Congress (1992-1993). Representatives are elected for 2-year terms. Representative John Dingell
(D-MI) has the longest consecutive service of any Member of the 108th Congress (48 years). Currently the dean of the House, he began serving on December 13, 1955.10 At the beginning of the 108th Congress, the average length of service of Senators was nearly 11.3 years, the highest since the 103rd Congress (1993-1995). Senators are elected for 6-year terms. Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV) has served longer (45 years) than any other incumbent Member of the Senate. His service began on January 3, 1959. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), the Senate President pro tempore, is the current Republican Senator with the longest Senate service (35 years). He has served since December 24, 1968.

As has been true in previous Congresses, law and business are the dominant
professions in the 108th Congress.5 Other professions include public service, education, agriculture, and journalism. A closer look at the prior occupations of Members of the 108th Congress also shows:! eight medical doctors (including a psychiatrist), three dentists, two veterinarians, an optometrist, three nurses, one pharmacist, and three psychologists;! five ministers;
! 35 mayors, 13 state Governors, 11 Lieutenant Governors (including two
Delegates), two state first ladies (one of whom was also the first lady of
the United States) and one territorial first lady, two former cabinet secretaries, two state supreme court justices, and a federal judge;
! a president of the National Conference on State Legislatures and 274
(232 in the House and 42 in the Senate) former state legislators;6
! 112 congressional staffers (including 10 congressional pages), 14 White
House staffers or fellows, several former executive branch employees,
a former aide to the Secretary of Defense, a former deputy administrator
in the Veterans’ Administration, a former deputy assistant Secretary of
State, and a former ambassador; four police officers (including a Capitol policeman), two state troopers, two sheriffs, two volunteer firemen, two probation officers, and a border patrol chief; two FBI agents and one CIA agent;two physicists, two chemists, a biomedical researcher, a geologist, and
a microbiologist; six Peace Corps volunteers; an astronaut, a professional magician, a semi-professional musician, two broadcasters, a television sportscaster, a television reporter, a motivational speaker, a commercial airlines pilot, a corporate pilot, a flight school instructor, a major league baseball player, a major league football player (who was also a college football coach), a florist, a librarian, two vintners; and two auctioneers, two jewelry makers, a steelworker, a carpenter, an ironworker, a paper mill worker, a meat cutter, a river boat captain, a hotel bellhop, a taxicab driver, a race track blacksmith, and a “jackeroo” (cowboy) on a sheep-cattle ranch.

See HERE.

[stormylin]

And of course, the two terms M.D. and Esquire have nothing in common. M.D. stands for medical doctor, esquire is a title for English nobility. Neither of which, comes remotely close to meaning Mr. - Mr. GB!!

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by stormylin

And of course, the two terms M.D. and Esquire have nothing in common. M.D. stands for medical doctor, esquire is a title for English nobility. Neither of which, comes remotely close to meaning Mr. - Mr. GB!!

Please show me were it states that esquire stands for nobility.

[GoneForNow]

es·quire (ĕs'kwīr', ĭ-skwīr') pronunciation
n.

1. A man or boy who is a member of the gentry in England ranking directly below a knight.
2. (Abbr. Esq.) Used as an honorific usually in its abbreviated form, especially after the name of an attorney or a consular officer: Jane Doe, Esq.; John Doe, Esq.
3. In medieval times, a candidate for knighthood who served a knight as an attendant and a shield bearer.
4. Archaic. An English country gentleman; a squire.

[Middle English esquier, from Old French escuier, from Late Latin scūtārius, shield bearer, from Latin scūtum, shield.]

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by stormylin

Speaking of half right- from http://education.yahoo.com/reference.../entry/esquire

es·quire (skwr, -skwr) KEY

NOUN:

A man or boy who is a member of the gentry in England ranking directly below a knight.
Abbr. Esq. Used as an honorific usually in its abbreviated form, especially after the name of an attorney or a consular officer: Jane Doe, Esq.; John Doe, Esq.
In medieval times, a candidate for knighthood who served a knight as an attendant and a shield bearer.
Archaic An English country gentleman; a squire.

During the period that the Constitution was written and at the time the missing XIII Amendment addressed this, Esquire was still a Very English title for nobility.

(I missed the mister in that definition )

Note it states gentry not nobility. A title of nobility is inherited such as Duke or Duchess but not esquire or knight, for that matter, neither of which can be inherited. Esquire has never been a title for nobility, now or then. As the definition states, it's a honorific title. Nice try but your source is all wet.

[stormylin]

Originally Posted by gbrumb

Please show me were it states that esquire stands for nobility.

Note it states gentry not nobility. A title of nobility is inherited such as Duke or Duchess but not esquire or knight, for that matter, neither of which can be inherited. Esquire has never been a title for nobility, now or then. As the definition states, it's a honorific title.

According to the source below- claiming the title of Esquire is unconstitutional. Further, it states that one could lose their citizenship by claiming this title. Though, of course it also states that this is a title that is used today.

(I believe the word gentry derives from gentri which means of noble birth).


Source: http://www.uslawbooks.com/books/esquire.htm

Definitions of Esquire

What is Esquire? Is it a academic degree like a doctorate of law? Is it a rank like a General in the Army? Is it gender determinator like Ms. or Mr.? Then what is it? Then lets see what it means academically, historically and socially:

From Webster's Revised Unabridged College Dictionary

Esquire \Es*quire"\, n. [OF. escuyer, escuier, properly, a shield-bearer, F. ['e]cuyer shield-bearer, armor-bearer, squire of a knight, esquire, equerry, rider, horseman, LL. scutarius shield-bearer, fr. L. scutum shield, akin to Gr. ? skin, hide, from a root meaning to cover; prob.akin to E. hide to cover. See {Hide} to cover, and cf. {Equerry}, {Escutcheon}.] Originally, a shield-bearer or armor-bearer, an attendant on a knight; in modern times, a title of dignity next in degree below knight and above gentleman; also, a title of office and courtesy; -- often shortened to squire.

Note: In England, the title of esquire belongs by right of birth to the eldest sons of knights and their eldest sons in perpetual succession; to the eldest sons of younger sons of peers and their eldest sons in perpetual succession. It is also given to sheriffs, to justices of the peace while in commission, to those who bear special office in the royal household, to counselors at law, bachelors of divinity, law, or physic, and to others. In the United States the title is commonly given in courtesy to lawyers and justices of the peace, and is often used in the superscription of letters instead of Mr.

Claiming the title of Esquire may even be unconstitutional for reasons cited below. In short there was even a proposed amendment that one could lose their U.S. citizenship claiming any title. It does no longer mean that people that use this title are no longer gentlemen as used previously but it's use may risk those who wish to remain a U.S. citizen. Read on!



Black's Law Dictionary defines esquire as:

"Esquire - In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others." Blacks Law Dictionary fourth ed. p.641

In America we did away with all titles bestowed by the so-called aristocracy/royalists when the yoke was severed with England. Today the use of esquire is sometimes used by members of the legal profession and others but it has no legal significance. It does raise questions. If and when used those that use it may be jeopardizing their rights as U.S. citizens.


What does the history of the United States and its Constitution say about the title of ESQUIRE


The Articles of Confederation, Article VI states: "nor shall the united States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any Title of nobility."

The Constitution for the United States, in Article, I Section 9, clause 8 states: "No Title of nobility shall be granted by the united States; and no Person holding any Office or Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Also, Section 10, clause 1 states, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque or Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but Gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto of Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of nobility."

There was however, no measurable penalty for violation of the above Sections, Congress saw this as a great threat to the freedom of Americans, and our Republican form of government. In January 1810 Senator Reed proposed the Thirteenth Amendment, and on April 26, 1810 was passed by the Senate 26 to 1 (1st-2nd session, p. 670) and by the House 87 to 3 on May 1, 1810 (2nd session, p. 2050) and submitted to the seventeen states for ratification. The Amendment reads as follows:

"If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

[GoneForNow]

Originally Posted by stormylin

According to the source below- claiming the title of Esquire is unconstitutional. Further, it states that one could lose their citizenship by claiming this title. Though, of course it also states that this is a title that is used today.

(I believe the word gentry derives from gentri which means of noble birth).


Source: http://www.uslawbooks.com/books/esquire.htm

Definitions of Esquire

What is Esquire? Is it a academic degree like a doctorate of law? Is it a rank like a General in the Army? Is it gender determinator like Ms. or Mr.? Then what is it? Then lets see what it means academically, historically and socially:

From Webster's Revised Unabridged College Dictionary

Esquire \Es*quire"\, n. [OF. escuyer, escuier, properly, a shield-bearer, F. ['e]cuyer shield-bearer, armor-bearer, squire of a knight, esquire, equerry, rider, horseman, LL. scutarius shield-bearer, fr. L. scutum shield, akin to Gr. ? skin, hide, from a root meaning to cover; prob.akin to E. hide to cover. See {Hide} to cover, and cf. {Equerry}, {Escutcheon}.] Originally, a shield-bearer or armor-bearer, an attendant on a knight; in modern times, a title of dignity next in degree below knight and above gentleman; also, a title of office and courtesy; -- often shortened to squire.

Note: In England, the title of esquire belongs by right of birth to the eldest sons of knights and their eldest sons in perpetual succession; to the eldest sons of younger sons of peers and their eldest sons in perpetual succession. It is also given to sheriffs, to justices of the peace while in commission, to those who bear special office in the royal household, to counselors at law, bachelors of divinity, law, or physic, and to others. In the United States the title is commonly given in courtesy to lawyers and justices of the peace, and is often used in the superscription of letters instead of Mr.

Claiming the title of Esquire may even be unconstitutional for reasons cited below. In short there was even a proposed amendment that one could lose their U.S. citizenship claiming any title. It does no longer mean that people that use this title are no longer gentlemen as used previously but it's use may risk those who wish to remain a U.S. citizen. Read on!



Black's Law Dictionary defines esquire as:

"Esquire - In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others." Blacks Law Dictionary fourth ed. p.641

In America we did away with all titles bestowed by the so-called aristocracy/royalists when the yoke was severed with England. Today the use of esquire is sometimes used by members of the legal profession and others but it has no legal significance. It does raise questions. If and when used those that use it may be jeopardizing their rights as U.S. citizens.


What does the history of the United States and its Constitution say about the title of ESQUIRE


The Articles of Confederation, Article VI states: "nor shall the united States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any Title of nobility."

The Constitution for the United States, in Article, I Section 9, clause 8 states: "No Title of nobility shall be granted by the united States; and no Person holding any Office or Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Also, Section 10, clause 1 states, "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque or Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but Gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto of Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of nobility."

There was however, no measurable penalty for violation of the above Sections, Congress saw this as a great threat to the freedom of Americans, and our Republican form of government. In January 1810 Senator Reed proposed the Thirteenth Amendment, and on April 26, 1810 was passed by the Senate 26 to 1 (1st-2nd session, p. 670) and by the House 87 to 3 on May 1, 1810 (2nd session, p. 2050) and submitted to the seventeen states for ratification. The Amendment reads as follows:

"If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

Your article doesn't state that it's unconstitutional. Again, nice try. The article says that esquire may be unconstitutional and then quotes the Constitution and so forth. It's a bogus argument, at best.

Nobility, Title of
Nobility is technically a station in society that is had simply by being born into the right family. The class of persons, well-characterized by the aristocracy of Great Britain, were considered to be higher in status and power because of the family name. A title of nobility indicated that status, where a person was a king, queen, prince, princess, count, countess, duke, duchess, baron, or baroness; these titles were granted by the monarch at some point in the family history and passed from parent to child. The Framers wished to ensure that no such system of heredity developed in the United States and specifically prohibited any state or the federal government from granting any title of nobility.

Just as valid. No inheritance of title, no nobility attached.

[GoneForNow]

BTW, it's real academic to cite to an advertisement from the Esq. watch company as your "source" Here from the same source:

THE ASSOCIATION OF THE BAR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

FORMAL OPINION 1994-4

COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS

May 5, 1994

ACTION: FORMAL OPINION

TOPIC: Name; use of title "Esquire" No. 1994-5 COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS May 5, 1994 ACTION: FORMAL OPINION

OPINION:

DIGEST: Attorney may ethically use the title "Esq." after his or her name, even when acting in a non-legal capacity.

CODE: DRs 1-102(A)(4); 2-101(A); 2-101(C)(1); EC 2-13.

QUESTION

May an attorney properly append the suffix "Esq." to his or her name when not acting in a legal capacity?

OPINION

The inquirer is counsel to a not-for-profit organization that employs staff members and volunteers who happen to be attorneys, but who perform non-legal functions such as public relations, administration, or communicating with members of the organization about the organization's positions on particular issues. The organization identifies these attorneys, who do not practice law on its behalf, in its documents with the title "Esq." following their names. The inquirer asks whether this identification is proper and whether the attorneys may appropriately use the title when communicating on behalf of the organization. We answer these questions affirmatively.

The use of the title "Esquire" has its origins in the Middle Ages. An esquire was a candidate for knighthood, acting as attendant and shield bearer for a knight. n1 Webster's New World Dictionary (1980). Over time, the title became one denoting respect, rather than a specific occupation.(Like the use of "Mister")

n1 The word is derived from the Latin "scutum" -- a shield, and Middle English: "esquier" -- a shield bearer.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, after the decline of the feudal system, the title of "Esquire" was perpetuated by certain lawyers, among them William Blackstone and Edward Coke. These lawyers drew up lists of those they thought entitled to carry the title. The lists included various classes of men who were sons of peers, minor nobles, honorary knights and those who were designated with the title "esquire" upon appointment to office. These appointments were to both legal and non-legal offices and included among others, "Royal Academicians." However, it appears that the title has always been an arbitrary conferment and never reserved exclusively to lawyers. See, e.g., Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990) (defining "esquire" as a title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight; also a title of office given to sheriffs, sergeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace and others; in the United States, title commonly appended after name of attorney); Random House Dictionary of the English Language (2nd ed. 1987) (defining esquire as: "an unofficial title of respect having no precise significance, sometimes placed, esp. in abbreviated form, after a man's surname in formal written address; in the U.S., usually applied to lawyers, women as well as men; in Britain, applied to a commoner considered to have gained the social position of gentleman").

It is not clear how the title "Esquire" came to be used so commonly (and seemingly so exclusively) by lawyers in the United States. There is no authority that reserves the title "Esquire" for the exclusive use of lawyers. n2 Because neither the law nor any established ethical rule governs the use of the title, it would be presumptuous for any non-legislative body to purport to regulate its use. Nonetheless, based on common usage it is fair to state that if the title appears after a person's name, that person may be presumed to be a lawyer.

n2 For example, New York's Judiciary Law contains no reference to the use of the term esquire in its provisions governing "Attorneys and Counsellors." Indeed, it has been noted that:

an 'esquire' has no relation to law. It is often added to the names of poets or artists; and the term may be applied to a landed proprietor or a country squire; that being one of courtesy. . . . Nowhere do we find that the term 'esquire' denotes an attorney at law.

Antonelli v. Silvestri, 137 N.E.2d 146, 147-48 (Ohio App. 1955).

The only ethical question posed by the use of the title "esquire" by lawyers acting in a non-legal capacity is whether such use if misleading. See DR 1-102(A)(4) (providing that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); DR 2-101(A). We do not believe it is. DR 2-101(C)(1) permits a lawyer to use, in connection with his or her name, a designation indicating training in the law, such as "J.D." See ABA Formal Op. 321 (1969); N.Y. State 105(a) (1969); Maryland 85-21 (1984). Accord D.C. Op. 183 (1987); Iowa Op. 85-14 (1986). But see Philadelphia Op. 86-98 (1986). The title "esquire" does not legally designate an individual as a lawyer because it is not conferred in this country as an academic degree or license. It has, however, been adopted by lawyers by convention as a form of designation. Thus, one using the title in the United States is identifying himself or herself as a lawyer. But, just as a lawyer may identify his or her professional affiliation in a social context, see N.Y. State 105(a) (1969), and that a non-admitted law school graduate may use the title "J.D." on business cards and letterhead, see Maryland 85-21 (1984), the use of the title "esquire" by a lawyer in a non-legal context does not constitute an ethical transgression.

We would be more concerned if the non-practicing attorneys were signing correspondence or otherwise identifying themselves as, for example, "J. Doe, Attorney-at-Law," as opposed to "J. Doe, Esq." A recipient of such a communication could well conclude, incorrectly, that the lawyer was acting in a legal capacity. EC 2-13 states in this regard that "[i]n order to avoid the possibility of misleading persons with whom a lawyer deals, a lawyer should be scrupulous in the representation of professional status." If a member of the organization used the title "attorney" in correspondence while acting in a non-legal capacity, this might convey the impression that a legal position is being taken on behalf of the organization or that a legal opinion is being rendered. Similarly, if one were so identified in meeting minutes it might convey the impression that a member is counsel to the committee or the organization. These concerns, however, do not affect our conclusion that the simple use of the title "Esq." after an attorney's name is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the question presented is answered in the affirmative.

[stormylin]

Maybe you missed my entire point, academia has no place in government. The federal law in This Country is designed for Citizen legislatures. And a nonsense made up legalize language doesn't impress me in the slightest. The Constitution and SC judges are way too full of themselves like -----I'll skip that.

[stormylin]

Hubby is an academic, scholar, whatever he is-- and this can all be interesting or Very Boring, and completely distracts from the point!!

What exactly Is the point here, who knows after all of this Boring blah blah stuff-- I remember!!! Supreme Court Justices have no business changing the Constitution, which btw GB, Doesn't include all of this guff!! Thank goodness. But that has been changed by people who want us to 'believe' it does

[stormylin]

The problem with your so called academic resources is it looks like this "*&^<KJ(&^JJ%" Hieroglyphics or some crap to the rest of us!!!

[stormylin]

BTW, GB, thanks for sharing. I already read all of this on the site.

I am not as disturbed about a title of 'Esquire' today, because it would appear that in my readings I may 'even' be one .

My point and concern is that there is a missing Amendment!! That would be the XIII. If the title Esquire has changed meaning over time, then let that be the case. Though the fact of the matter is, there was an intention for this Constitutional Amendment, and it should certainly be restored. I don't believe that attorneys are of English nobility because they maintain an old English custom by using a title 'of course', but I Do believe that our Constitution should be restored to what it was intended to be. And if that has become archaic, that is all fine with me, we have a method of changing it.

That method would Not include- Loosing an Amendment!!

[stormylin]

So what GB, you busted me!!!

[stormylin]

Sorry for overposting and not taking the time to do this in one post. Esquire does in fact say that it 'may be' unconstitutional to hold 'any title' for that matter. My whole position has been that there are facts of our federal law (or gov) that we 'as the people' are not exactly aware of- or worse, oblivious to. Our government is the people's government and we should Never be oblivious to what is happening to it!!

Up until the early 1800's the 'missing' XIII Amendment was in a wealth of literature. Since the Amendment is 'missing' Esquire can only say, "it may be unconstitutional" to hold any certain title. Then, subsequently anything can be done with an Amendment that no longer 'exists' per se. Sure, they can say, it is A OK to have this title since there is no obvious law available to prevent it. For the record, I believe this Amendment was federal law around 1825, and it was replaced under the Lincoln administration with an anti slave law on or around 1876. (For the record, I used to believe Lincoln was the greatest President. Now I think he had great potential, but he became part of the corruption once he attained office. Never mind, he was a racist!)

We can spat out the details of an Amendment that is not there to critique until we are blue in the face--- Though my hero in history is Socrates, and I feel it is extremely important to raise questions. And the fact is, this Amendment is still 'missing'. And neither of us can debate the issue until it shows up-- fat chance that this will happen!!

[Mulderator]

Is it just me or is there an awful lot of sexual tension going on between Gbrumb and Stormylin?